Mexican Foreign Trade Policy

in the New Millennium

A Research Report for the Institute of Developing Economies

Japan External Trade Organization

By
María-Cristina Rosas

MARCH 2002

APEC STUDY CENTER

INSTITUTE OF DEVELOPING ECONOMIES
 Mexican Foreign Trade Policy
in the New Millennium

By
María-Cristina Rosas*/

MARCH 2002
APEC STUDY CENTER
INSTITUTE OF DEVELOPING ECONOMIES

*/ Professor, Department of International Relations, Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, National
Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM), (Email: [email protected]).
 Table of contents

Charts ii

Graphics iii

Acronyms iv

Introduction vii

Economic Reform in Mexico in the second half of the 80’s 16

The end of the ISP 18
X-raying Mexico’s foreign trade 19
Mexico and the US: the ties that bind 24

Mexico’s Foreign Trade Policy 26

Foreign Trade Policy Formulation in Mexico 29
Mexico, regionalism and multilateralism 31
In search of consistency 32

The North American Free Trade Agreement 34

Contents of the agreement 38
The evolution of NAFTA 42
The future of NAFTA 47

The Free Trade, Political Coordination and Cooperation Agreement

between Mexico and the European Union 50
Contents of the free trade agreement 53
The political and coordination agreement 54
The cooperation agreement 56

The Free Trade Agreement between Mexico and Costa Rica 60

Contents of the free trade agreement 62
The links between FDI and free trade 66
The importance of the free trade agreement 68

The Free Trade Agreement between Mexico and Israel 71

The negotiation process 74
Some symmetries between Mexico and Israel 75
Contents of the free trade agreement 77
Possible effects on Mexico of the Free Trade Agreement
with Israel 79

Concluding remarks: Where does Mexico go from here? 82

Annexes 90

Bibliography 117

Index 129

i
 Charts

The ten largest exporting corporations in Mexico 20

The ten largest importing corporations in Mexico 22
The 10 largest ;Mexican Multinational Corporations 24
Human Development Index (HDI) rank for Mexico, Canada,
the US, the EU member countries, Costa Rica and Israel 30
Comparative contents of the CUSFTA and NAFTA agreements 36
Annual US merchandise trade balance with Mexico and Canada 38
North American Trade 1996-2000, January-September 2000,
and January-September 2001 45
Chronology of the Global Agreement negotiations between
Mexico and the European Union 52
Costa Rica’s Trade and Economic Agreements concluded in 2001 63
Israel’s International Trade and Economic Agreements 73
Negotiations between Mexico and Israel to conclude
a free trade agreement 75
Comparative table of contents of selected FTAs signed by Mexico 91
Economic, social and technological indicators for Mexico 93
Economic, social and technological indicators for the United States 94
Economic, social and technological indicators for Canada 95
Economic, social and technological indicators for The European Union 96
Economic, social and technological indicators for Austria 97
Economic, social and technological indicators for Belgium 98
Economic, social and technological indicators for Denmark 99
Economic, social and technological indicators for Finland 100
Economic, social and technological indicators for France 101
Economic, social and technological indicators for Germany 102
Economic, social and technological indicators for Greece 103
Economic, social and technological indicators for Ireland 104
Economic, social and technological indicators for Italy 105
Economic, social and technological indicators for Luxembourg 106
Economic, social and technological indicators for Portugal 107
Economic, social and technological indicators for Spain 108
Economic, social and technological indicators for Sweden 109
Economic, social and technological indicators for The Netherlands 110
Economic, social and technological indicators for Costa Rica 111
Economic, social and technological indicators for Israel 112
Direct Foreign Investment (FDI) in the
Mexican States and Municipalities in year 2000 113

ii
 Graphics

Mexico: Gross Domestic Product 1988-1995 21

Mexico: Current Account Deficit 1988-1994 23
Trade within NAFTA in 1998 43
The participation of the EU in Mexico’s Total Foreign Trade 55
The role of the EU as a FDI source for Mexico (1994-September 1999) 57
Mexico: Exports to the EU 58
Mexico: Imports from the EU 59
Costa Rica: major exported products 2001 * 62
Costa Rica: main destination for exports 2001 * 65
Costa Rica: trade relations with Mexico 1991-1999 66
Costa Rica: destination of FDI flows 2001 * 67
Mexico: Central American FDI flows in 1994-2000 68
Costa Rica: sources of FDI in 2001 * 69
Trade between Mexico and Israel 79
Exports from Mexico to Israel 80
Exports from Israel to Mexico 81

iii
 Acronyms

ACS Association of Caribbean States

AEC African Economic Community
AMPMI Agreement on the Promotion and Mutual Protection of Investment
AMU Arab Maghreb Union
APEC Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation
AS Americas Summit

BERD Bank of Economic Reconstruction and Development

CAP Common Agricultural Policy

CBI Caribbean Basin Initiative
CEFTA Central European Free Trade Area
CEMEX Cementos Mexicanos
CEPAL
COMESA Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa
CUSFTA Canada-U. S. Free Trade Agreement

ECLAC Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean

EFTA European Free Trade Association
EU European Union

FCE Federal Commission if Electricity

FDI Foreign Direct Investment
FTAA Free Trade Area of the Americas

G3 Group of Three
GATT General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
GDP Gross Domestic Product
GNI Gross National Income
GNP Gross National Product
GPS Generalized Preferential System

HDI Human Development Index

iv
 I

IAS Iberian American Summits

ILO International Labor Organization
IMF International Monetary Fund
IPFTP Industrial Policy and Foreign Trade Program
ISP Import Substitution Policy

LAAI Latin American Association of Integration

MERCOSUR South American Common Market

MFN Most Favored Nation

NAFTA North American Free Trade Agreement

NGOs Non-Governmental Organizations
NICs Newly Industrialized Countries
NT North Triangle

OECD Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development

PEMEX Petróleos Mexicanos

PPP Purchasing Power Parity
PRI Institutional Revolutionary Party

R&D Research and Development

SADC Southern Africa Development Community

SE Ministry of Economy
SECOFI Ministry of Trade and Industrial Promotion
SICA Central American Integration System
SMSCs Small and Medium Size Companies
SRE Ministry for Foreign Affairs

v
 T

TELMEX Teléfonos de México

UEMOA West African Economic and Monetary Union

UN United Nations
UNCTAD United Nations Conference on Trade and Development
UNEP United Nations Environmental Program
UNHCHR United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights
USITC United States International Trade Commission

WB World Bank
WTO World Trade Organization

Note: This document contains the introductory chapter of the report only. For
obtaining the whole report, please contact:

[email protected]

vi
 Introduction
Mexico’s Foreign Trade Policy has experienced dramatic changes from the
middle 80’s to now. In that period, the country dismantled most of its obstacles
to international trade; embraced the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
(GATT) membership; signed free trade agreements with a substantial amount of
countries, including the United States and the European Union (EU); and
became a founding member of the World Trade Organization (WTO). At the
same time, Mexico became very active in regional fora such as the Asia-Pacific
Economic Cooperation (APEC) arrangement, the Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development (OECD), the Bank of Economic Reconstruction
and Development (BERD), the Iberian American Summits (IAS), and the
Americas Summit (AS).

Traditionally, Mexican Foreign Trade Policy has relied on unilateral, bilateral,

regional and multilateral approaches to the promotion of its trade interests in the
world. Prior to the middle 80’s, the Mexican Government pursued an Import
Substitution Policy (ISP) that favored local-national producers over foreign
products. Even foreign investment was discouraged, because at some point
local producers were expected to become strong enough to be able to compete
against foreign corporations. This was considered a temporary measure, since
Mexican producers were not supposed to be protected by Governmental
provisions forever, and, in fact, several foreign companies were allowed to carry
out operations in Mexico by being granted an exceptional treatment under
Mexican Foreign Investment Law.

Mexico joined the GATT until 1986. Prior attempts to become a member were
dropped since, it was argued, the country would lose sovereignty and power
decision-making in dealing with the management of the economy. Since then,
the Mexican economy opened, making domestic decision-making more and
more exposed to the imperatives of the international environment. This decision
was nurtured by the economic difficulties faced by the country in the 80’s. The
international prices of its main export product, the oil, diminished dramatically,
having devastated consequences for a country whose most important source of
revenues was the selling of oil products abroad. Mexico was also heavely

1
indebted, and the international creditors were not willing to deliver to the country
neither to other developing nations fresh credits, worsening the situation. Also,
the recession of the United States economy had important effects in Mexico,
due to the strong dependence on the American market for Mexican products. All
those circumstances claimed for dramatic changes in the Mexican economy
and eventually a restructuring of Mexico’s Foreign Trade and Foreign
Investment legislations were considered as a condition to discuss a
restructuring of the foreign debt with creditors, and a more predictable
relationship (via free trade agreements) with its major trade partners.

The coming of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is

considered a key decision to seal the economic reform carried out by Mexico. In
signing NAFTA, Mexico was able to institutionalized its economic relations with
the United States (and Canada), but also committed the Mexican Government
to behave in a predictable way as stated by the NAFTA provisions.

The NAFTA negotiations took place at a time when skepticism on the faith of
multilateral trade negotiations under the GATT framework, was flourishing.
Many countries believed that the GATT structure was no longer the best to
negotiate issues like market access and national treatment. The rules of
procedure, including the consensus and the single undertaking provisions made
more difficult to reach an agreement among its more than 120 members,
particularly during the Uruguay Round of multilateral trade negotiations. By
1989 it was believed that member countries should explore alternatives to
multilateralism in dealing with market access, and regionalism, apparently,
became an option. Between 1989 and 1994, more than 30 new wave regional
economic cooperation and/or integration initiatives were developed, such as
NAFTA (1994), the South American Common Market (MERCOSUR, 1991),
APEC (1989), the Association of Caribbean States (ACS, 1994), the African
Economic Community (AEC, 1991), the Arab Maghreb Union (AMU, 1989), the
West African Economic and Monetary Union (UEMOA, 1994), the Common
Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA, 1993), the Southern African
Development Community (SADC, 1992), the Central American Integration
System (SICA, 1991), and the Central European Free Trade Area (CEFTA,

2
1992), among others. This is not to suggest that the only reason to sign free
trade, customs union and common market agreements was the stagnation of
the GATT Uruguay Round, since each country involved in the mentioned
initiatives may have had specific needs and requirements when it comes to the
market access of its trade partners. However, the fact that the multilateral
approach was not perceived as an option, certainly contributed to the
perception that regionalism was a desirable process.

For Mexico, a free trade agreement with its major trade partner was a follow-up
step after the country was able to become a member of GATT. Thus, when the
Uruguay Round experienced a major stagnation, Mexico actively pursued a
comprehensive trade arrangement with the United States. Even though
multilateralism was identified as an important forum for Mexican authorities, the
fact that more than three quarters of Mexico’s total international trade were
carried out with one country made the NAFTA negotiations extremely attractive
and important. At that time, the US Government had already signed bilateral
free trade agreements with Israel (1985) and Canada (1989). Being Mexico its
third major trade partner, the United States considered feasible a free trade deal,
specially because it already had one with its major trade partner, that is,
Canada.

For the NAFTA negotiations to succeed, President George Bush Senior needed
the Congress to authorized the so-called fast-track authority with which the
Executive branch would be allowed to negotiated trade arrangements. Once
ready, they would be submitted for the consideration of legislators, so that they
ratify either reject the agreement, without the possibility of making amendments
to it. In order to negotiate NAFTA, President Bush Senior was granted the fast-
track authority. Several studies suggest that in signing NAFTA, the United
States Government paved the way for additional negotiations within the GATT
framework, since most of GATT members were not happy to know that major
economic powers were sponsoring free trade, customs union and/or common
market agreements far from the multilateral environment. Some analysts also
suggest that despite the fact that NAFTA is a matter of concern with respect to
the multilateral negotiating environment, several provisions of the agreement

3
served as “model negotiations” to nurture the Uruguay Round multilateral
negotiations. In any case, the fast-track authority granted to President Bush
Senior to sign NAFTA was also the same authority so that the United States
signed the Uruguay Round agreements and became member of the new-born
WTO.

By the time WTO was created, the enthusiasm over regional economic
cooperation and/or integration agreements was considerably high. The new
wave mentioned above remained in place, i. e. no single regionalization
initiative born in the 1989-1994 period neither in previous times was dismantled,
putting the multilateral trading system in a difficult coexistence with initiatives
based on the GATT article XXIV provision on free trade, customs union and/or
common markets arrangements.

Mexico, in fact, pursued additional free trade negotiations with countries in three
continents, despite the coming into force of the Uruguay Round agreements.
Thus, from the time the Uruguay Round experienced a dramatic stagnation to
now, Mexico signed 10 free trade agreements, that is –an apart from NAFTA-:
with Bolivia, Chile, Costa Rica, the so-called Group of Three (G3, including
Mexico, Colombia and Venezuela), Nicaragua, the so-called North Triangle (NT,
including Mexico, El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras), the European Union,
the European Free Trade Association (EFTA), and Israel. Currently, Mexico
explores the possibility of concluding free trade agreements with MERCOSUR
countries –even though in this particular case the crisis experienced by
Argentina and the traditional rivalry with Brazil may postpone the negotiating
procedure-, and Japan.

The existence of a net of free trade initiatives raises concerns not only in
dealing with the multilateral trading system but also among the free trade
arrangements themselves. Some studies suggest the risk of overlapping
between the agreements. Mexico, in fact, experienced it, when NAFTA came
into force and Brazil claimed that the Mexican Government had failed to comply
with the provisions stated at the Montevideo Treaty of the Latin American
Association of Integration (LAAI), created long before NAFTA was born. The

4
most important problem, however, is the possibility of a multiple-compromising
scheme, considered by several practitioners trade promiscuity where each
arrangement intends to make prevail its particular provisions and rules. That is
why it is claimed that the multilateral trading system should prevail in dealing
with market access issues.

In any case, it would be fair to recognize that Mexico has pursued unilateral,
bilateral, regional and multilateral approaches to promote its economic interests
in the world. Unilateral measures have been considered necessary, for instance,
to face unfair competition practices by countries like China, whose products,
due to controversial production mechanisms happen to be very inexpensive.
Mexico has unilaterally imposed anti-dumping and countervailing duties to
Chinese products. These measures will become more difficult to implement due
to the Chinese membership at WTO –and in fact, Mexico negotiated a six to
eight year protection mechanism depending on the economic sector involved, to
protect its economy against Chinese products by the time Beijing became a full
member. Mexico has also signed bilateral agreements, like the ones, already
mentioned, with Israel and the European Union. Regionalism is very much in
the Mexican agenda, since, as explained before, most of the free trade
agreements signed in the past decade have been concluded with Latin
American Countries, without forgetting the Mexican participation in the US-
sponsored initiative to create a Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA). And,
speaking about multilateralism, apart from being a founding member of WTO,
Mexico will be hosting, in 2003, the WTO Ministerial Meeting where a new
multilateral round of trade negotiations is expected to continue.

Despite this multi-task approach shown by Mexico to promote its economic

interests in the world, it should not be forgotten that its most important trade
relationship is with the United States. NAFTA, in fact, has increased the already
intense structural existing relationship between Mexico and the US. The
northern neighbor takes most of Mexico’s international trade, a fact that has
pros and cons. The advantage of maintaining such a relation is that the United
States is the largest market in the world. The most important disadvantage is,
as witnessed today, the fact that a recession in that country in fact diminishes

5
consumption, thus harming Mexican products traditionally sold in the American
market. Some analysts also emphasize the political consequences of
maintaining a strong relationship between two asymmetrical countries like
Mexico and the United States, by suggesting the most vulnerable country, in
this case Mexico, is exposed to the imperatives of a country that is dominant
both in economic and non-economic terms, raising concerns about a limited
sovereignty. However, Mexico has not succeeded in diversifying its economic
links to other parts of the world, thus suggesting the signing of several free
trade agreements is more a political decision with minor economic impacts on
Mexico’s foreign trade.

What is that Mexico should do to promote its economic interests in the world in
a better way? Is it the current path the right one? The way in which the
economy was opened from the middle 80’s to now has produced dramatic
transformations within Mexico. After being an essentially raw materials exporter,
today most of its export products are manufactures. As suggested before,
however, oil is still very important when it comes to the total revenues of the
country. Part of the explanation can be found in the amount of components
needed from abroad to produce manufactures in Mexico. Because the opening
of the economy was conducted too fast, local producers were not able to
compete against foreign products. Most of those companies collapsed, making
Mexican production very dependent upon components made abroad. Thus, if
Mexico intends to increase its exports, it is needed, in fact, to increase the
imports of foreign goods and services. Also, an analysis of Mexico’s trade
balance reveals the strong dependence on foreign food products to satisfy the
most basic consumption requirements of the Mexican society. Currently there is
a debate on the extend in which the fact that Mexico is not able to produce
enough food to feed its population constitutes a threat to the national security of
the country. This is just to say that free trade agreements are increasing trade
between Mexico and its partners, but free trade has also distorting effects that
Mexico has not been able to deal with, at the expense of its productive and
competitive capabilities. Thus, Mexico needs an industrial policy where the role
of free trade negotiations is clearly defined. At the same time, the debate on the
need of additional free trade, customs union and/or common market

6
agreements should be seen in face of the existing trade arrangements, the
overlapping between them, and the fulfillment or not of their goals. The
multilateral environment may be a good way to pursue trade negotiations by
countries like Mexico, capable of addressing specific issues of concern for other
developing and even developed countries, and also with the possibility of
working together with like-minded countries to succeed in the negotiating
process.

That does not solve, of course, the missing compatibility between the existing
free trade, customs union, and common market agreements and the multilateral
trading system. Yet, more than a hundred regional economic cooperation and/or
integration initiatives exist all over the world and they cannot be ignored.
Virtually any country in any part pf the world, is involved in such initiatives. The
logical approach would be the multilaterilization of regionalism. That could be
done by multilateralizing the existing free trade, customs union and common
market initiatives, as suggested by some members of APEC. The other option,
seems to be more complex an very difficult to implement: the creation of a
multilateral negotiation environment where the participants would be, instead of
States, free trade, customs union and common market areas. This proposal, in
particular, would be very difficult to implement in the NAFTA region, where its
members, particularly the United States, do not seem to share common
negotiation interests with Mexico and Canada vis-à-vis other partners, such as
the EU. That is why Mexico already signed a free trade agreement with the
European Community, whilst the United States established on December 15th,
1995, the Transatlantic Agenda. Canada, on the other side, has not been able
to negotiate a trade arrangement with the EU. This illustrates the difficulties in
developing a common purpose within a region with respect to other parts of the
world. Only a few regional initiatives have consolidated a common approach in
that respect, being an exceptional example the European Union itself.

In the following pages, these matters will be discussed through the analysis of
Mexico’s Foreign Trade Policy. To do that, the first chapter will deal with the
economic reform carried out by Mexico from the middle 80’s to now and its
implications for the foreign trade policy of the country. The second chapter will

7
discuss the characteristics of the foreign trade policy of Mexico, by emphasizing
the unilateral, bilateral, regional and multilateral approaches pursued by the
Mexican Government to promote the economic interests of the country in the
world. From chapters three to six, four case studies of free trade negotiations
conducted by Mexico, will be examined. The first one is the NAFTA agreement,
which is the most important for economic and non-economic reasons,
considering that it involves the participation of Mexico’s major trade partner. The
next analysis focuses on the Mexico-European Union agreement, which is the
most comprehensive negotiation conducted, so far, by the Mexican Government.
Following in the analysis there is the Mexico-Costa Rica Free Trade Agreement,
and, finally, the Mexico-Israel Free Trade Agreement. These agreements were
not chosen by accident. Of the ten free trade agreements concluded by Mexico
in the past decade, these are either important and/or representative of Mexico’s
Foreign Trade Policy. NAFTA, for instance, is a mandatory reference, since it
paved the way for successive free trade negotiations. The agreement with the
European Union includes provisions that set economic and non-economic
standards for future trade negotiations conducted by Brussels. The agreement
with Costa Rica illustrates the way in which Mexico is promoting its economic
agenda in Latin America. Finally, the agreement with Israel, though hard to
justify in commercial terms, given the minimum importance of Israel in Mexico’s
total foreign trade, includes and excludes several economic sectors, a situation
which occurs in sharp contrast to other agreements signed by Mexico and Israel
with other partners.

This study finishes with concluding remarks on the debate over the challenges
that Mexico’s Foreign Trade Policy is facing in the years to come, the
desirability of additional free trade, customs union and/or common market
negotiations and the inevitable questions: what happens once trade
liberalization has been achieved through the agreements mentioned above –
since all of them have an average lasting time of 5 to 15 years? Will bilateral
relations evolve to a more comprehensive and inter-dependent relationship, say,
from a free trade area to a customs union - i. e. a common external tariff, or
from there to a common market? What are the chances for Mexico to redefine
its foreign trade strategy by multilateralizing the existing regional and bilateral

8
trade arrangements? Is Mexico willing to become a leader at the WTO
environment? Is the current Mexican Government in favor of designing a
comprehensive industrial policy for the next 20 years in which the role of
multilateral, regional and bilateral trade negotiations is clearly defined?

Before proceeding to the analysis of the issues mentioned above, I would like to
take this opportunity to thank my dear colleague and friend Professor Mónica
González for sharing her views on several matters discussed bellow, and also
for her valuable time and work in organizing the index at the end of this
research.

9
 Bibliography

Gloria Abella Armengol (1999), “México y la Unión Europea: ¿bilateralidad o

contrapeso a Estados Unidos?”, in Rosa María Piñón Antillón (coordinadora),
(1999), México y la Unión Europea frente a los retos del siglo XXI, México,
Facultad de Ciencias Políticas y Sociales-Universidad Nacional Autónoma de
México, Delegación de la Comisión Europea en México.

Vicente Guillermo Arnaud (1999), MERCOSUR, Unión Europea, NAFTA y los

procesos de integración regional, Buenos Aires, Abeledo-Perrot.

Jagdish Bhagwati (1991), Protectionism, London, Massachusetts Institute of

Technology.

Jagdish Bhagwati, Pravin Krishna and Arvind Panagariya (editors) (1999),

Trading Blocs. Alternative Approaches To Analyzing Preferential Trade
Agreements, London, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Mariano César Bartolomé (1999), La seguridad internacional en el año 10 D. G.

(después de LA Guerra fría), Buenos Aires, Instituto de Publicaciones Navales.

Víctor Batta (20 de mayo de 1996), “Seguridad en México, bajo la lupa de la

UE”, en El Financiero.

Carlos Berzosa (Agosto de 2000), “México y España ante dos procesos de

integración”, in Comercio exterior, Vol. 50, Núm. 8.

Alberto Binder (3/1999), “Entre la democracia y la exclusión: la lucha por la

legalidad en una sociedad desigual”, in Contribuciones, Konrad Adenauer
Stiftung.

Jean-Marc F. Blanchard, Edward D. Mansfield and Norrin M. Ripsman (editors)

(2000), Power and the Purse. Economic Statecraft, Interdependence and
National Security, London, Frank Cass.

Kuri Breña, Sánchez Ugarte, Corcuera y Aznar (March 1994), “Mexico’s New
Foreign Investment Law”, in Focus Americas.

Víctor Hugo Cárdenas (4/1998), “Los pueblos indígenas, derechos humanos y

democracia en América Latina”, in Contribuciones, Konrad Adenauer Stiftung.

CEPAL-Naciones Unidas (2000), La inversión extranjera en América Latina y el

Caribe 1999, Santiago de Chile, Comisión Económica para América Latina y el
Caribe.

_____ (2000b), Anuario estadístico de América Latina y el Caribe 1999,

Santiago de Chile, Comisión Económica para América Latina.

12
_____ (1999b), Panorama de la inserción internacional de América Latina y el
Caribe, Santiago de Chile, Comisión Económica para América Latina y el
Caribe.

_____ (1999c), Nuevas políticas comerciales en América Latina y Asia.

Algunos casos nacionales, Santiago de Chile, Comisión Económica para
América Latina y el Caribe.

_____ (1999d), Indicadores económicos, Santiago de Chile, Comisión

Económica para América Latina y el Caribe.

_____ (1999e), El desafío de las nuevas negociaciones comerciales

multilaterales para América Latina y el Caribe, Santiago de Chile, Comisión
Económica para América Latina y el Caribe.

_____ (1998), La inversión extranjera en América Latina y el Caribe 1997,

Santiago de Chile, Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe.

_____ (1998b), La inversión extranjera en América Latina y el Caribe 1998,

Santiago de Chile, Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe.

_____ (1997), La inversión extranjera en América Latina y el Caribe 1996,

Santiago de Chile, Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe.

_____ (1995), La inversión extranjera en América Latina y el Caribe 1995,

Santiago de Chile, Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe.

Dale C. Copeland (2000), “Trade Expectations and the Outbreak of Peace:

Détente 1970-74 and the End of the Cold War 1985-1991”, in Jean-Marc F.
Blanchard, Edward D. Mansfield y Norrin M. Ripsman (editors), Power and the
Purse. Economic Statecraft, Interdependence and National Security, London,
Frank Cass.

Juan Arancibia Córdova (1999), “La globalización, su impacto sobre los

trabajadores (as) y la respuesta sindical”, in Jaime Estay, Alicia Girón y
Osvaldo Martínez (coordinadores) (1999), La globalización de la economía
mundial. Principales dimensiones en el umbral del siglo XXI, México, Miguel
Angel Porrua-Instituto de Investigaciones Económicas-UNAM-Benemérita
Universidad Autónoma e Puebla-Centro de Investigaciones de la Economía
Mundial.

Eduardo Cuenca García, (Agosto de 2000), “Las economías española y

mexicana: un análisis comparativo”, in Comercio exterior, Vol. 50, Núm. 8.

Jaime Gerardo Delgado Rojas (1/1999), “Los temas no comerciales del ALCA”,
in Contribuciones, Konrad Adenauer Stiftung.

Christian Deblock, Afef Benessaieh and Marie-Paule L’Heureux (August 2002),

Canada-Mexico Economic Relations Since NAFTA: A Canadian Perspective,

13
Montréal, Research Center on Continental Integration, Université du Québec à
Montréal.

Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade of Canada (2001),

Overview, http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/nafta-alena/over-e.asp

Torcuato S. Di Tella (1/2000), “Los grupos de intereses particulares como

representantes de la población”, in Contribuciones, Konrad Adenauer Stiftung.

Miguel Ángel Díaz Mier and Penélope González del Río (Agosto de 2000), “Los
acuerdos de fin de siglo entre la Unión Europea y México”, in Comercio exterior,
Vol. 50, Núm. 8.

Directorio de organizaciones civiles (septiembre de 1994), México, D. F.

Secretaría de Gobernación-Subsecretaría de Desarrollo Político-Dirección
General de Desarrollo Político.

“Divided continent”, in The Economist, June 14th, 1997.

Winston Dookeran (1995), "Preferential Trade Agreements in the Caribbean:

Issues and Approaches", in IDB/ECLAC, Trade Liberalization in the Western
Hemisphere, Washington D. C.

James E. Dougherty, “The Politics of European Monetary Union”, in Current

History, Vol. 96, No. 608, March 1997.

Roberto Dromi and Carlos Molina Del Pozo (1996), Acuerdo MERCOSUR-
Unión Europea, Buenos Aires, Ediciones Ciudad Argentina.

F. Tomás Dueñas, Comercio exterior en el 2001 y perspectivas para el 2002,

Costa Rica’s Ministry of Foreign Trade, Diciembre 2001,
http://196.40.1.178/publicacion/ciclo/tduenas_files/slide0197.htm

Roberto Echandi (1998), El Tratado de Libre Comercio Costa Rica-México. Una

evaluación a 1998, San José, Dirección de Aplicación de Acuerdos
Comerciales Internacionales/Unidad de Monitoreo del Comercio y la Inversión.

“EMU’s paradoxes”, in The Economist, June 14th, 1997.

Jaime Estay, Alicia Girón and Osvaldo Martínez (coordinadores) (1999), La

globalización de la economía mundial. Principales dimensiones en el umbral del
siglo XXI, México, Miguel Ángel Porrúa-Instituto de Investigaciones
Económicas-UNAM-Benemérita Universidad Autónoma e Puebla-Centro de
Investigaciones de la Economía Mundial.

Rosendo Fraga (2/1999), “Análisis de la opinión pública y su impacto en la

sociedad”, in Contribuciones, Konrad Adenauer Stiftung.

Gonzalo Escríbano Francés (Agosto de 2000), “Integración y relaciones

exteriores: la experiencia española”, in Comercio exterior, Vol. 50, Núm. 8.

14
“Exportadoras e importadoras”, in Expansión, Agosto 16, 2000.

Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, http://www.fes.de

Jorge Mario García Laguardia (4/1998), “Los Defensores del pueblo y los
problemas de los Derechos Humanos en América Latina”, in Contribuciones,
Konrad Adenauer Stiftung.

José A. Guilhon Albuquerque (1/2000), “Los valores en la concepción

democrática del orden político”, in Contribuciones, Konrad Adenauer Stiftung.

S. F. Goodman (1993), The European Community, London, MacMillan.

Jaime Granados (1995), El mecanismo de solución de controversias del

Tratado de Libre Comercio suscrito entre México y Costa Rica, San José,
Dirección de Aplicación de Acuerdos Comerciales Internacionales/Unidad de
Monitoreo del Comercio y la Inversión.

Albert Hirschman (1980), National Power and the Structure of Foreign Trade,
Berkeley, University of California Press.

Gary Hufbauer and Barbara Kotsehwar (Spring 1996), “Transatlantic Free

Trade”, in The Washington Quarterly.

David Hulme and Michael Edwards (editors) (1997), NGOs, States and Donors.
Too Close for Comfort?, New York, St. Martin’s Press/Save the Children.

Carlos Huneeus (2/1999), “Las encuestas de opinión pública en las nuevas

democracias de América Latina. Algunas observaciones”, in Contribuciones,
Konrad Adenauer Stiftung.

Samuel P. Hungtinton (November/December 1996), “The West Unique, Not

Universal”, in Foreign Affairs.

IRELA (1997), La Unión Europea y México: una nueva relación política y

económica, Madrid, Instituto de Relaciones Europeo-Latinoamericanas.

_____ (21 de marzo de 2000), El Acuerdo de Libre Comercio México-UE. Pieza

clave de una asociación integral, Madrid, Instituto de Relaciones Europeo-
Latinoamericanas.

_____ (18 de julio de 2000), México: perspectivas de un cambio histórico,

Madrid, Instituto de Relaciones Europeo-Latinoamericanas.

_____ (Agosto de 1994), México: entre el cambio y la continuidad, Madrid,

Instituto de Relaciones Europeo-Latinoamericanas.

Fernando Jeannot (2001), Las reformas económicas en México, México, Miguel

Ángel Porrúa/Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana-Unidad Atzcapotzalco.

15
Margaret E. Keck and Kathryn Sikkink (2000), Activistas sin fronteras, México,
Siglo XXI.

Jane Kelsey (1999), Reclaiming the Future. New Zealand and the Global
Economy, Toronto, University of Toronto Press.

Konrad Adenauer Stiftung, http://www.kas.de

Heinrich-W. Krumwiede and Detlef Nolte (4/1998), “América Latina como región
de inversión y producción. Apreciaciones de los ejecutivos alemanes”, in
Contribuciones, Konrad Adenauer Stiftung.

Martha Lagos (2/1999), “¿Quo vadis América Latina? El estudio de la opinión

pública regional en el Latinobarómetro”, in Contribuciones, Konrad Adenauer
Stiftung.

Alejandro E. Lamothe (1998), “Las relaciones jurídicas entre la Unión Europea

y los diferentes esquemas de integración latinoamericanos”, in Carlos
Francisco Molina del Pozo (coordinador) (1998), Integración
eurolatinoamericana, Buenos Aires, Ediciones Ciudad Argentina.

Juan Ramón Lanzas Molina and Encarnación Moral Pajares (Agosto de 2000),
“Las relaciones comerciales de la Unión Europea y España con México”, in
Comercio exterior, Vol. 50, Núm. 8.

“Las 100 multinacionales más importantes de México”, in Expansión,

Septiembre 13, 2000.

Ada Lattuca and Miguel A. Ciuro Caldani (coordinadores) (1998), Economía

globalizada y MERCOSUR, Buenos Aires, Ediciones Ciudad Argentina.

Jacques Lecomte (1997), “Las relaciones entre la Unión Europea y México: tres
generaciones de acuerdos de cooperación”, in IRELA (1997), La Unión
Europea y México: una nueva relación política y económica, Madrid, Instituto de
Relaciones Europeo-Latinoamericanas.

L’état du monde. Annuaire économique géopolitique mondial 2000, Montréal,

Boréal.

Peter Lieberman (2000), “The Offense-Defense Balance, Interdependence and

War”, in Jean-Marc F. Blanchard, Edward D. Mansfield y Norrin M. Ripsman
(editors), Power and the Purse. Economic Statecraft, Interdependence and
National Security, London, Frank Cass.

“Lori’s War”, in Foreign Policy, Spring 2000, No. 118.

Alexander R. Love (1994), Cooperación para el desarrollo. La ayuda en

transición. Esfuerzas y políticas de los miembros el Comité de Ayuda al

16
Desarrollo. Informe 1993, París, Organización para la Cooperación y el
Desarrollo Económicos.

Spyros G. Makridakis and Michelle Bainbridge (1992), “La evolución del

mercado único”, in Spyros G. Makridakis et al, El mercado único europeo.
Oportunidades y desafíos para los negocios, Madrid, McGraw Hill.

Edward D. Mansfield, Jon C. Pevehouse and David H. Bearce (2000),

“Preferential Trading Arrangement and Military Disputes”, in Jean-Marc F.
Blanchard, Edward D. Mansfield y Norrin M. Ripsman (editors), Power and the
Purse. Economic Statecraft, Interdependence and National Security, London,
Frank Cass.

Gutenberg Martínez O. (1/2000), “Los partidos políticos en la lucha por la

confianza. Problemas de representación y participación en América Latina y el
resto del mundo”, in Contribuciones, Konrad Adenauer Stiftung.

Yadira Mena (18 de octubre de 1996), “Defiende México postura ante la UE”, in
Reforma.

Patrick Minford, Anupam Rastogi and Andrew Hughes Hallett (1992), “ERRM
and EMU-Srvival, Costs and Prospects”, in Ray Barrell y John Whitley (editors),
Macroeconomic Policy Coordination in Europe. The ERM and Monetary Union,
London, Sage Publications.

Ministerio de Comercio Exterior de Costa Rica, http://196.40.1.178/

_____ (2001), El comercio y la inversión entre Costa Rica y México bajo el TLC
en el 2000, San José, Dirección de Aplicación de Acuerdos Comerciales
Internacionales/Unidad de Monitoreo del Comercio y la Inversión.

_____ (2000), Tratado de Libre Comercio entre Costa Rica y México: una
evaluación a cinco años de su vigencia, San José, Dirección de Aplicación de
Acuerdos Comerciales Internacionales/Unidad de Monitoreo del Comercio y la
Inversión.

Ministry of Industry and Trade of Israel, http://www.israel-industry-trade.gov.il/

Carlos Francisco Molina del Pozo (coordinador) (1998), Integración

eurolatinoamericana, Buenos Aires, Ediciones Ciudad Argentina.

Pat Roy Mooney, The ETC Century. Erosion, Technological Transformation and
Corporate Concentration in the 21st Century, Uppsala, Dag Hammarskjöld
Foundation.

Gabriel Murillo-Castaño (1/2000), “Participación popular versus participación

indirecta”, in Contribuciones, Konrad Adenauer Stiftung.

NAFTA Secretariat, http://www.nafta-sec-alena.org/

17
NAFTA-Commission for Environmental Cooperation of North America,
http://www.cec.org/

NAFTA-North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation, http://www.naalc.org

NAFTA Customs, http://www.nafta-customs.org

Dick K. Nanto (1992), The U. S.-EC-Japan Triangle, CRS Report for Congress.

Pietro S. Nivola (1993), Regulating Unfair Trade, Washington D. C., The

Brookings Institution.

Emile Noël (1991), Las instituciones de la Comunidad Europea, Bruselas,

Oficina de Publicaciones Oficiales de las Comunidades Europeas.

Robert O’Brien, Anna Marie Gotees, Jan Aart Scholte and Marc Williams (2000),
Contesting Global Governance. Multilateral Economic Institutions and Global
Social Movements, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Etelberto Ortíz Cruz (octubre-diciembre 1998/enero-marzo 1999), “Cambio

estructural: dualidad macroeconómica. Caracterización del desequilibrio
externo en la economía mexicana”, Problemas del desarrollo. Revista
latinoamericana de economía, números 115-116, Vol. 30.

Javier Oyarzun de la Iglesia (Agosto de 2000), “México en el TLCAN, España

en la Unión Europea: balance de la integración”, in Comercio exterior, Vol. 50,
Núm. 8.

Rafael Pampillón Olmedo (Agosto de 2000), “Relaciones económicas entre

América Latina y la Unión Europea”, in Comercio exterior, Vol. 50, Núm. 8.

_____ (2/1999), “¿Siguen siendo necesarias las privatizaciones en América

Latina?”, in Contribuciones, Konrad Adenauer Stiftung.

Esteban Pérez y Juan Carlos (March 16-18 2000), Latin America’s long-term
economic growth and foreign trade performance, mimeo. Ponencia presentada
en el 2000 Meeting de la Latin American Studies Association, Hyatt Regency,
Miami.

Rosa María Piñón Antillón (coordinadora) (1999), México y la Unión Europea

frente a los retos del siglo XXI, México, Facultad de Ciencias Políticas y
Sociales-Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México/Delegación de la Comisión
Europea en México.

Frank Priess (2/1999), “Encuestas y actividad política. Un instrumento válido y

su mal uso”, in Contribuciones, Konrad Adenauer Stiftung.

Mario Rapoport (ed.) (1994), Globalización, integración e identidad regional.

Análisis comparado Argentina-Canadá, Buenos Aires, Grupo Editor
Latinoamericano.

18
_____ (ed.) (1995), Argentina y Brasil en el MERCOSUR, Buenos Aires, Grupo
Editor Latinoamericano.

John Ravenhill, “Competing Logics of Regionalism in the Asia-Pacific”, in Revue

d’integration européenne/Journal of European Integration, 1995, XVIII, nos. 2-3,
Canada.

Mirjam van Reisen (1998), “The European Community Programme”, The

Reality of Aid. An Independent Review of Poverty Reduction and Development
Assistance, London, Earthscan Publications.

Salvador Rodríguez y Rodríguez y Alfredo Guerra-Borges (compiladores)

(1999), El desarrollo en América Latina y los procesos de integración
subregional, México, Siglo XXI/Instituto de Investigaciones Económicas.

Francisco Rojas Aravena (editor) (1998), Globalización, América Latina y la

diplomacia de las cumbres, Santiago, FLACSO Chile.

_____ (1999), Cooperación y seguridad internacional en las Américas,

Santiago, FLACSO Chile/Woodrow Wilson Center/Nueva Sociedad.

_____ (1999), Argentina, Brasil y Chile: integración y seguridad, Caracas,

FLACSO Chile/Nueva Sociedad.

Francisco Rojas Aravena y William C. Smith (editores) (1994) El Cono Sur y las
transformaciones globales, Santiago de Chile, FLACSO/North-South
Center/CLADDE.

Francisco Rojas Aravena y Paz Buttedahl (editors) (1999), Open Regionalism:

Strengthening the NET. Perspectives from APEC Countries, Santiago de Chile,
FLACSO Chile/Vancouver Institute for the Americas.

Alison Van Rooy (editor) (1999), Civil Society and Global Change, Ottawa, The
North-South Institute.

María Cristina Rosas (2001), La economía internacional en el siglo XXI. OMC,

Estados Unidos y América Latina, México, Facultad de Ciencias Políticas y
Sociales/Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.

_____ (enero 2001), “El lugar de la política comercial externa de México en una
necesaria política industrial”, Este País.

_____ (1999), México y la política comercial externa de las grandes potencias,

México, Instituto de Investigaciones Económicas/Facultad de Ciencias Políticas
y Sociales/Miguel Ángel Porrúa.

_____ (March 1994), “Mexico and Regional Dislocation in Mexico: The Social
Dimension”, in Focus Americas.

19
Isabel Rueda Peiro (1998), México: crisis, restructuración económica, social y
política, México, Silo XXI/Instituto de Investigaciones Económicas.

Neantro Saavedra-Rivano (March 16-18 2000), Trade and Foreign Direct

Investment Between Asia and Latin America, mimeo. Ponencia presentada en
el 2000 Meeting de la Latin American Studies Association, Hyatt Regency,
Miami.

Raúl P. Saba (March 16-18 2000), Harvesting the Dividends of Peace:

Integration and Development in the Peru-Ecuador Borderlands, mimeo.
Ponencia presentada en el 2000 Meeting de la Latin American Studies
Association, Hyatt Regency, Miami.

Mohammad Sadli (1994), “Regionalism in Asia”, en Hadi Soesastro (editor),

Indonesian Perspectives on APEC and Regional Cooperation in Asia Pacific,
Jakarta, Centre for Strategic and International Studies.

Raúl E. Sáez, “Trade and Investment Between Canada and the LAIA Countries”,
en Richard G. Lipsey y Patricio Meller (editors), Western Hemisphere Trade
Integration. A Canadian-Latin American Dialogue, New York, St. Martin’s Press,
1997, pp. 232-248.

Sebastián Sáez (1999), Estrategia y negociación en el sistema multilateral de

comercio, Santiago de Chile, Dolmen Ediciones.

Pierre Salama (abril-junio 1999), “Globalización, desigualdades territoriales y

salariales”, Problemas del desarrollo. Revista latinoamericana de economía,
número 117, Vol. 30.

Juan Salazar Sparks (1999), Chile y la comunidad del Pacífico, Santiago de

Chile, Editorial Universitaria.

John Saxe-Fernández (coordinador) (1999), Globalización: crítica a un

paradigma, México, Plaza & Janés/DGAPA/UNAM/Instituto de Investigaciones
Económicas.

John Saxe-Fernández, James Petras, Henry Veltmeyer y Omar Núñez (2001),

Globalización, imperialismo y clase social, Buenos Aires, Lumen Humanitas.

Stephan Sberro (1997), “Las relaciones entre México y la Unión Europea: ¿el
fin del desencuentro?”, in IRELA (1997), La Unión Europea y México: una
nueva relación política y económica, Madrid, Instituto de Relaciones Europeo-
Latinoamericanas.

Daniel Schutt (1/1999), “Apuntes sobre escenarios estratégicos de la

integración”, in Contribuciones, Konrad Adenauer Stiftung.

SECOFI (2000), Acuerdo de asociación Económica, Concertación Política y

Cooperación entre México y la Unión Europea, México, Secretaría de Comercio
y Fomento Industrial.

20
SELA (Diciembre 2001), El viejo mundo estrena moneda nueva: el euro,
Caracas, Sistema Económico Latinoamericano,
http://lanic.utexas.edu/~sela/AA2K1/ESP/notest/notest38/notest38.htm

Ofelia Stahringer de Caramuti (coordinadora) (1998), El MERCOSUR en el

nuevo orden mundial, Buenos Aires, Ediciones Ciudad Argentina.

Ramón Tamames (1991), Estructura económica internacional, México,

Alianza/CONACULTA.

The Canada-U. S. Free Trade Agreement (1988), Ottawa, The International

Communications Group.

The Economist (2001), Pocket World in Figures, London, The Economist.

The OXFAM Handbook of Development and Relief (1998), Oxford, OXFAM UK

& Ireland.

The Reality of Aid. An Independent Review of Poverty Reduction and

Development Assistance 1998/1999, London, Earthscan Publications.

The World Bank Group (2001), World Development Indicators 2001,

Washington D. C., The World Bank.

_____ (2001), World Development Report 2002. Building Institutions for

Markets, Washington D. C., The World Bank.

_____ (2000), World Development Indicators 2000, Washington D. C., The

World Bank.

Un nouveau Traité pour l’Europe. Guide du citoyen (1997), Luxembourg, Office

Des Publications Officielles des Communautés Européennes.

UNCTAD (2001), Trade and development Report 2001. Global Trends and
prospects. Financial architecture, Geneva, United Nations Conference on Trade
and Development.

_____ (1999), Preparing for Future Multilateral Trade Negotiations: Issues and
Research Needs From a Developing Perspective, Geneva, United Nations
Conference on Trade and Development.

_____ (1996), Globalization and Liberalization: Effects of International

Economic Relations on Poverty, Geneva, United Nations Conference on Trade
and Development.

_____ (1995), State of South-South Cooperation. Statistical Pocket Book and

Index of Cooperation Organizations, Geneva, United Nations Conference on
Trade and Development.

21
UNDP (2001), Human Development Report 2001. Making New Technologies
Work for Human Development, New York, Oxford University Press.

_____ (2000), Human Development Report 2000. Human Rights and Human
Development, New York, Oxford University Press.

United Nations (1991), World Investment Report. The Triad in Foreign Direct
Investment 1991, New York, United Nations Centre on Transnational
Corporations.

_____ (1999), Preparing for Future Multilateral Trade Negotiations. Issues and
Research Needs from a Development Perspective, New York, United Nations
Conference on Trade and Development.

_____, (1998), Basic Facts About the United Nations, New York, United Nations.

_____ (1998b), Economic Survey of Latin America and the Caribbean 1997-
1998, Santiago, United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America and
the Caribbean.

USICT (October 2001), NAFTA: Probable Economic Effect of Accelerated Tariff

Elimination, Washington, D. C., United States International Trade Commission,
investigation No. 332-433.

_____ (August 2000), The Impact on the U. S. Economy of Including the United
Kingdom in a Free Trade Arrangement with the United States, Canada and
Mexico, Washington, D. C., United States International Trade Commission,
investigation No. 332-409.

_____ (September 1997), Report to the Congress. Recommendations on

Future Free Trade Area Negotiations, Washington D. C., United States
International Trade Commission.

Félix Varela Parache (Agosto de 2000), “El proceso de creación de la Unión

Monetaria Europea”, in Comercio exterior, Vol. 50, Núm. 8.

Gregorio Vidal (coordinador) (2001), México y la economía mundial. Análisis y

perspectivas, México, Miguel Ángel Porrúa/Universidad Autónoma
Metropolitana-Unidad Iztapalapa.

Paul R. Viotti y Mark V. Kauppi (1993), International Relations Theory. Realism,

Pluralism, Globalism, New York, MacMillan, 2nd.

George M. Von Furstenberg y Alexander Volbert (octubre-diciembre 1999),

“The U. S. Dollarization Approach to Regional Currency Consolidation: Second
Brest in the Short Run. Doomed in the Long Run”, Problemas del desarrollo.
Revista latinoamericana de economía, número 119, Vol. 30.

Martin Walker (April 19, 1998), “Black and white economies divide EU”, in The
Guardian Weekly.

22
Sidney Weintraub (December 1999), “Technical Cooperation Needed for
Hemispheric Free Trade Negotiations”, Cooperation South, United Nations
Development Program, Number Two.

_____ (March 1995), “The Mexican Economy: Life After Devaluation”, Current
History.

WTO (May 2001), Annual Report 2000, Geneva, World Trade Organization.

_____ (1998), Trade Policy Review. Mexico 1997, Geneva, World Trade
Organization.th

_____ (February 1997), Trade Policy Review. United States 1996, Geneva,
World Trade Organization.

_____ (November 1995), European Union. Trade Policy Review. Volume 1,

Geneva, World Trade Organization.

_____ (April 1995), Regionalism and the World Trading System, Geneva, World
Trade Organization.

Alexander Yeats (February 1997), Does Mercosur’s Trade Performance Raise

Concerns about the Effects of Regional Trade Arrangements?, Policy Research
Working Paper 1729, The World Bank/International Economics
Department/International Trade Division.

Steven S. Zahniser (March 16-18 2000), NAFTA and Mexican Migration to the
United States: Has NAFTA Caused a Surge in First Migration?, mimeo.

23
List of Publications from the IDE APEC Study Center

FY 1995/96

IDE APEC Study Center Working Paper Series

No.1 Hiroki Kawai and Iwao Tanaka, “Measuring the Cost of Protection in Japan”, 1990.
No.2 Fumio Yoshino, “Trade Impediments of Agricultural Products and Food”.
No.3 Haruko Yamashita, “Factors Affecting Domestic Price Differentials in the Japanese Fisheries
and Marine Products”.
No.4 Kunihiro Ohishi, “Factors Affecting Domestic Price Differentials in the Petroleum Products”.
No.5 Hideki Ishikawa, “Factors Affecting Domestic Price Differentials in the Japanese Electric and
Electronic Machinery Products”.
No.6 Akiko Hirano, “Legal Aspects of the Institutionalization of APEC”.
No.7 Tatsushi Ogita, “The APEC Policy-Making Process in Japan”.
No.8 Jiro Okamoto, “An Approach towards Australia's Foreign Economic Policy Making Process”.

FY 1996/97

1. Report

The View of Economic and Technology Cooperation in APEC

Edited by Keiji Omura

Chapter I General Perspective on the Economic And Technology Cooperation of APEC (by
Keiji Omura)
Chapter II Trade Flow and Foreign Direct Investment in APEC Region (by Satoru Okuda)
Chapter III Constant-Market Share Analysis and Open Regionalism: A Study Suggestion (by
Hiroya Ichikawa)
Chapter IV Development and Stability of the Asia-Pacific Regional Market: How to Stabilize
the Development Path of the East-Asian Market by Establishing a Framework for
Better Risk Management (by Toshihiko Kinoshita)
Chapter V Human Development in the Case of Small and Medium Sized Enterprises (by
Tomohiro Uchida)
Chapter VI APEC Cooperation for Adjustment toward Emerging Problems (by Masatake
Wada)
Chapter VII Japan's ODA and APEC (by Takeshi Mori)

2. IDE APEC Study Center Working Paper Series

No.1 Shigeru Itoga, “Labor Issues and APEC Liberalization”.

No.2 Jiro Okamoto, “Asian Regionalism and Japan”.
No.3 Jiro Okamoto, “Foreign Economic Policy Making in Australia: Analytical Framework and the
Role of the State”.
No.4 Shigeki Higashi, “Economic Policy and the Growth of Local Manufactures in Thailand”.
No.5 Tatsushi Ogita, “The Origins of Contrasting Views on APEC”.
No.6 Daisuke Takoh, “China's APEC Policy and the Accession to the WTO”.
No.7 Tatsushi Ogita and Daisuke Takoh, “ The Making of the Osaka Action Agenda and Japan's
Individual Action Plan”.
No.8 Hiroki Tohya, “TRIPs and Policies of APEC on Intellectual Property Rights: Economic Theory
and Political Reality”.
No.9 Ippei Yamazawa, “APEC’s Liberalization and Impediments in Japan: Overview of Services
Trade”.
No.10 Kunihiro Ohishi, “Survey of Impediments to Trade and Investment in Japan -Distribution
Services”.
No.11 Hidenobu Okuda, “Impediments in Japanese Banking Industry”.
No.12 Tsutomu Chano, “Impediments to Service Trade in the Insurance Sector”.

24
 No.13 Masanao Terashima, “Trade and Investment Barriers, and Domestic-Foreign Price
Differentials in Transport Services”.
No.14 Schunichi Hiraki, “Impediments in Construction and Engineering Services”.
No.15 Haruko Yamashita, “Trade Impediments and Domestic Price Differentials in the Japanese
Telecommunications Sector”.
No.16 Kazuhiko Yokota, “Impediments to International Service Transactions in the Health-related
and Social Services Sector”.
No.17 Shujiro Urata and Hiroki Kawai, “The Cost of Regulation in the Japanese Service Industries”.
No.18 Marina Fe B. Durano, “Barriers to Cross-Border Provision of Services within the APEC: with
a Focus on the Movement of Persons”.
No.19 Kahlil Rowter, “Training as a Vehicle for Enhanced Growth: A Study of Human Resource
Development Needs for Enhanced Investment and Cooperation among APEC Members”.
No.20 Li Kun Wang , “The Effect and Strategy of Trade Liberalization for China”.
No.21 Zhao Jiang Lin, “Openness of China’s Manufacturing Sectors and Its APEC Policy”.

3. Reports of Commissioned Studies

Center for APEC Studies, Nankai University, Economic Policy in APEC: The Case of China Policy.
Institute of Economics and Social Research, Faculty of Economics, University of Indonesia, Economic
Policy in APEC: The Case of Indonesia.
Philippine Institute for Development Studies, Economic Policy in APEC: The Case of the Philippines.
Faculty of Economics, Chulalongkorn University, Economic Policy in APEC: The Case of Thailand.

FY 1997/98

1. Report

Deepening Economic Interdependence in the APEC Region

Edited by Keiji Omura

Overview (by Keiji Omura)

Chapter I Deepening Economic Interdependence in the APEC Region: Boom and
Vulnerability through Trade Linkages (by Hiroshi Osada)
Chapter II Can a Sub-regional Group Enhance the Tie?: with Emphasis on East Asia (by
Satoru Okuda)
Chapter III The Background and Causes of the Current Financial Crisis in Indonesia (by
Masaaki Komatsu)
Chapter IV ASEAN’s Relationships with America (by Takeshi Aoki)
Chapter V The Historical Development of Australia-ASEAN Relations: Implications for
APEC into the Year 2000 (by Jiro Okamoto)
Chapter VI Industrial Policies and Trade Liberalization: The Automotive Industry in Thailand
and Malaysia (by Mai Fujita)
Appendix China’s Policy for the Liberalization of Trade and Investment through the

APEC/IAP and Negotiations for the Accession to the WTO in 1997 (by
Daisuke Takoh)

2. IDE APEC Study Center Working Paper Series

No.1 Akira Kuroda, “Stakes in Common: APEC’s Technological Cooperation”.

No.2 Shigeru Itoga, “The Challenge to the Enhancement of Technological Level of Thai Industry”.
No.3 Atsusuke Kawada, “Current Situation and Outlook for Economic and Technical Cooperation
among Developing Countries in APEC: Singapore Cooperation toward Neighbouring Asian
Developing Countries”.
No.4 Shunji Karikomi, “The Development Strategy for SMEs in Malaysia”.
No.5 Nobuhiro Horii, “APEC Cooperation and Strategies for the Introduction of Renewable Energy
into Developing Countries”.
No.6 Colin K.L. Chang, “Lessons in Technology Development: The Japanese Experience”.

25
3. Reports of Commissioned Studies

Urban Ecosystem Management, Institute for Environment and Development (LESTARI), Universiti
Kebangsaan Malaysia, Urbanization and Environment in Malaysia: Managing the Impact.
Tsai She Hsien, Taiwan Research Institute, A Study in the technological Development of Taiwan’s
Enterprise and Technology Transfer with Direct Investment. (in Japanese).

FY 1998/99

1. Reports

Trade Liberalization and Facilitation in APEC: A Re-evaluation of APEC Activities

Edited by Satoru Okuda

Chapter I “Potential” APEC Sub-regions: Current Status and Future (by Satoru Okuda)
Chapter II The AFTA-CER Linkage Dialogue: An Endeavour for Closer Relations between
SRTAs within APEC (by Jiro Okamoto)
Chapter III Vietnam in APEC: Changes in Trade Patterns after the Open Door Policy (by
Mai Fujita)
Chapter IV Development Policies for Small and Medium Enterprises in APEC: In the Case
of the Philippines (by Mayumi Fukumoto)
Chapter V Capital Account Liberalization in Emerging Markets: Lessons from the Asian
Currency Crisis (by Shunji Karikomi)
Chapter VI Korea’s New Accounting Standards and Its Impact on APEC (by Shiro
Takahashi and Satoru Okuda)

Future Prospects of Supporting Industries in Thailand and Malaysia

Edited by Ryuichiro Inoue and Shigeru Itoga

Chapter I Overview (by Shigeru Itoga)

Chapter II Future Prospect of Supporting Industries in Thailand and Malaysia (by Ryuichiro
Inoue)
Chapter III Fostering Supporting Industries in Thailand through the Linkage between Local
and Foreign Interests, the Case of Mold and Die Sector (by Jun Tsunekawa)
Chapter IV Development and Enhancement of Supporting Industries in Malaysia (by Kyohei
Yamazaki)
Chapter V Real State of Mold & Die Industries in Asia and Their Relationship with Japan’s
Mold & Die Industry (by Etsujiro Yokota)

2. IDE APEC Study Center Working Paper Series

Ratana Eiamkanitchat, “The Role of Small and Medium Supporting Industries in Japan and Thailand”.

3. Reports of Commissioned Studies

Rajah Rasiah, IKMAS, UKM and Faculty of Economics and Business, UNIMAS, State Support and
Machine Tool Subcontracting Links in Malaysia : Microelectronics and Passenger Car
Assemblies.
Kitti Limskul, Faculty of Economics, Chulalongkorn University, Future Prospects of Selected
Supporting Industries in Thailand.

FY 1999/2000

1. Report

Industrial Linkage and Direct Investment in APEC

Edited by Satoru Okuda

26
 Chapter I Industrial Linkage and Direct Investment in APEC (by Satoru Okuda)
Chapter II Foreign Direct Investment, Trade, and Vietnam’s Interdependence in the APEC
Region (by Mai Fujita)
Chapter III Technical Assistance to Japanese Affiliates: The Case of the Autoparts Industry
in Thailand (by Yoshi Takahashi)
Chapter IV Russia’s Participation in APEC and Economic Development in the Far East (by
Mayumi Fukumoto)
Chapter V Macroeconomic Impacts in APEC Region: Measurement by APEC Link Model
(by Jinichi Uemura)

2. IDE APEC Study Center Working Paper Series

No. 1 Jiro Okamoto, “The Political Process of APEC Early Voluntary Sectoral Liberalisation: Setting
the Research Agenda”.
No. 2 Akiko Yanai, “APEC and the WTO: Seeking Opportunities for Cooperation”.
No. 3 Fumio Nagai, “The APEC EVSL Initiative and the Policy Making Process in Thailand”.
No. 4 Tatsushi Ogita, “Japan’s Policy Making in the APEC EVSL Consultations: Its Actors, Process
and Interpretations”.
No. 5 Yutaka Onishi, “Politics by Mass Media?: Changes in the Korean Policy toward APEC Early
Voluntary Sectoral Liberalization”.
No. 6 Satoshi Oyane, “America’s Non-“Two-Level Game” at the APEC EVSL Initiative: Structural
Change in Trade Politics”.

3. Reports of Commissioned Studies

Michael Wesley, School of Political Science, University of New South Wales, The Politics of Early
Voluntary Sectoral Liberalisation in Australia.
Hanafi Sofyan, A. Syafi’i, Yasmi Adriansyah and Lynda Kurnia Wardhani, Institute for International
Finance and Commodities (Jakarta), The Policy Making Consultations of APEC Early
Voluntary Sectoral Liberalization: The Case of Indonesia.

FY 2000/01

1. Report

APEC in the 21st Century−Selected Issues for Deeper Economic Cooperation−

Edited by Satoru Okuda

Chapter I Impact of Economic and Technical Cooperation on Northeast Asian Countries (by
Mayumi Fukumoto)
Chapter II Linking SRTA and ECOTECH—A Consideration Based on Japan-Korea FTA
(by Satoru D. Okuda)
Chapter III Macroeconomic Impacts under FTA Configuration in the APEC Region (by
Jinichi Uemura)
Chapter IV Liberalization of Trade in Services in APEC: Assessment of IAP and the GATS
Commitments (by Mikiko Yogo)
Chapter V Regional Trade Arrangement and Strategies of Multinationals: Implications of
AFTA for Economic Integration (by Mai Fujita)
Chapter VI Expert Dispatch Program for Private Enterprises –The Case of JODC Experts in
the Thai Manufacturing Sector– (by Yoshi Takahashi)

2. IDE APEC Study Center Working Paper Series

No.1 Jiro Okamoto, “The AFTA-CER Linkage Dialogue Revisited: Its Recent Development and
Implications”.
No.2 Akiko Yanai, “Reciprocity in Trade Liberalization”.
No.3 Fumio Nagai, “Thailand’s Attitude toward Trade Liberalization: In the Context of the ASEAN
Free Trade Area (AFTA) ”.
No.4 Tatsushi Ogita, “On Principles of APEC”.

27
 No.5 Satoshi Oyane, “‘Plurilateralism’ of the United States and its APEC Policies”.
No.6 Hanafi Sofyan, “Promoting Financial Cooperation within the ASEAN+3”.

3. Reports of Commissioned Studies

Yoo Soo Hong, Korea Institute for International Economic Policy (KIEP), Internet Business
Cooperation in Northeast Asia and APEC.
Vladimir I. Ivanov and Hirofumi Arai, Economic Research Institute for Northeast Asia (ERINA),
Multilateral Cooperation in Northeast Asia and APEC.

IDE APEC Study Center publications may be downloaded from:

http://www.ide.go.jp/English/Apec/Publish/index.html

28
 APEC STUDY CENTER
INSTITUTE OF DEVELOPING ECONOMIES, JETRO
March 2002
3-2-2 Wakaba, Mihama-ku, Chiba-shi
Chiba 261-8545, JAPAN
Web Site: http://www.ide.go.jp

ISBN 4-258-59009-6